Quick thoughts on voyeurism in Sneeze

[norwich36]

I wrote this on the bus to work today--I have a gazillion work projects to finish and I can't stop thinking about SV! So if I don't reply to comments on this until this weekend, sorry--I probably won't be able to check lj again today.

Spoilers, obviously, for SV: Sneeze


I was thinking of the role of voyeurism and power in SV. From the very beginning of the show, Clark is described as a watcher, a voyeur into human life, symbolized by his telescope, in which he watches Lana in a way that the show initially suggests is mostly innocent, not stalkery: Clark is an outsider trying to understand human life by watching. And in a way it foreshadows the role of Superman: watching over human beings in order to save them.

Later, of course, voyeurism takes on a more sinister cast, as a series of watchers (Phelan, Nixon, Lex) put Clark's secret in danger. Cameras are a particular source of danger, since they can potentially reveal Clark (like the blur Lex sees in Rogue, or the tapes that Nixon makes of Clark's superpower. I think it's significant when Lex creates the famous Chamber of Clark Kent that there is a giant photo of Clark at the center of it; this is not simply to encourage speculation about Lex's homoerotic desire for Clark, but also to depict the dangerous power of Lex's gaze.

So I think it's very interesting that the show is now depicting Lex's gaze literally turned on Lana (even though he denies it--come on, we all know he watched that clip repeatedly! Why else was it the first one to appear?) He's trying to control his life by becoming all-seeing, which is a lovely nod to his future iconic self, in which there's nothing that goes on in Metropolis that Lex doesn't know about. I think, in a sense, he's also trying to control Lana this way: to *collect* her, like he collected Clark. What's really interesting about this is Lana's reaction: unlike Clark, when exposed to Lex's voyeurism, she doesn't flee; instead she attempts to set boundaries. (Of course, the Chamber of Clark Kent is a bit creepier than one shot of her undressing, and she doesn't have the same secrets to hide Clark does, so exposure is not as inherently dangerous to her, but still, I think most women would have left after discovering something like that.) Does Lana secretly enjoy being watched/collected? Will she stay with Lex and his (probably necessary) paranoid need to control his environment with omnipresent cameras?

And it's interesting that the connection between cameras, watching, and power was reinforced by the Oliver Queen storyline. Oliver knows about Lex's powers because his corporation had the only functioning satellite during Dark Thursday. This reinforces my conviction that Queen is being set up to deliberately parallel Lex, as I discussed in my earlier review : a billionaire interested in investigating humans with special abilities, not necessarily using ethical means to do so.

Since Queen is also a superhero in DC canon, I am excited by the potential triangulation of Clark-Lex-Oliver: Is Queen's characterization going to be closer to Lex's or Clark's? And what will each learn from him (or interactions with him) about heroism or villainy?

Comments

[mobiusklein.livejournal.com]

I think there has always been an air of Lana as "object" and thing to be "collected." The pilot has Whitney acting very possessive (violently so) over her but it's his inattention that drives her away. There was also the whole bizarre speech about Magnetic!boy where she praises him for honesty despite all the things he could've done to her. There's a strong strain of narcissism in Lana that almost demands attention and I think she'll tolerate a lot of really peculiar stuff (especially w/o a backup) for quite a while.

[random-serious.livejournal.com]

Yeah (It's not polite to butt in...but, I had to), you are right. Lana is an object to be own, rather than a real person, in the SV verse. Lana is often, IMO, presented less than human: she is a prize, a collectible, an object that brings pretige to the holder/ owner rather than a person. (This is the way she is portrayed, I am not suggesting this is what she necessarily is.)

What's more Lana is portrayed as enjoying this objectification: This is what really pisses me off. She is being controlled by elevating her to this blameless status of someone who is never wrong, nor ever scolded for actions that in and by others cause blame, yet these actions result in injury/ death/ voyeristic experiences/ her to be praises for her beauty etc. and all the while she remains in-active, passive.

In addition, she is portrayed ... smug, it could be said, so smug that she accepts and expects controlling/ voyerism as her due. (Again, she is portrayed this way.) She is also seen using her object status to gain favor from people whose favors she needs/ wants, somehow passively again. Favors just fall in her lap: trips to Paris, dead ex-bfs, coffee shops. It's all related to her being an object, rather than a person, in SV verse.

In short, I agree with you.

[mobiusklein.livejournal.com]

A lot of people on other blogs usually comment to comments, so don't worry.

I know that a lot of people have warmed up to Lexana and all but I still see a lot of the same dynamic in that I think that in many ways Lex hooked up with her for reasons other than romantic love: to piss off Clark, to show Lionel that he was wrong, to prove to his dead mother that he could have most of the good stuff w/o the bad. This is my trophy, I win. Dysfunctionality can be interesting but . . .

As for leaving, she has usually ran to Clark when things went bad with Whitney, Jason, Adam, etc. W/o an escape route, it would actually require her to leave on her own which is something we really haven't seen her do. (Even leaving Nell required Chloe to strangely open her house to her and Lana's motivation at the time had a great deal to do with rediscovering her father and Clark.)

I think it's more a matter that she hates the downside of being under the gaze of others yet can't imagine that she's NOT the center of being viewed. The question is if she has to choose between being "collected" or being utterly "alone" (or at least w/o a boyfriend/father figure), which would she choose.

[random-serious.livejournal.com]

I agree, to everything that you say.

I just don't know how this dead end can be turned around. Lana would need to literally become someone else, possessed for good, for Lexana or anything even remotely related to Lana to work at all.

Lana is a plot device that got out of hand. They should have made her third tier/ gone years ago.

(I love your analysis, I lurk the TwoP SV Boards.)

[norwich36.livejournal.com]

Yes, aren't you the one who wrote the famous "Lana as fetish object" essay? It's not just Whitney in the Pilot, either--it's how during almost all of season one Lex tries to give Lana to Clark as a substitute for the truck!

[mobiusklein.livejournal.com]

Yeah, that's me.

I think part of the problem stems from who AlMiles is using as inspiration: Helen of Troy. A character like Helen of Troy works in the context of myth but 21st century drama, not so much.

I remember a while back in Deadwood, Trixie tells Sol that while her situation may be violent and not the greatest, it's familiar and that's what pulls her to it. While I'm not saying Lana's a hooker like Trixie, I do think that she has gotten used to men/boy's desire for her being mixed with a great huge helping of dysfunction. Clark spies on her and lies to her, Lex spies on her, Bugboy spied on her, Van and a freak joke about her having a stalker network. There's violence involved, etc. It's the only real spin I can put on it that makes psychological sense.